Axis History Forum

This is an apolitical forum for discussions on the Axis nations and related topics hosted by the Axis History Factbook in cooperation with Christian Ankerstjerne’s Panzerworld and Christoph Awender's WW2 day by day.
Founded in 1999.

If the Germans, for whatever reason, don't create a nominally independent Poland in 1916-1917, what effects is this going to have later on?

Wm said in another thread here that the Poles benefited from having the Germans build a proto-state for them during WWI. Thus, I am wondering just how much worse the Poles would have fared in the aftermath of WWI and especially in their war with the Soviets if they would have needed to build a new state from scratch in 1918-1919 (instead of relying on the state infrastructure that the Germans already built for them).

Everything would be "less" or "worse". Fewer taxes collected, a smaller and even more rag-tag Army than in reality. Less successful conscription.
Later elections so less time to achive politcal consesus.
The negatives could have been negated by a signing a truce or even a peace treaty with the Soviets early on - because they were willing.
The Baltic states would pay for that with their freedom - because the Soviets would have the means and time to "take care" of them.

The dates mostly indicate when the old political order collapsed creating a political vacuum, not the strength of the new countries. They were mostly dictated by external circumstances.

Even more, Finland and Czechia enjoyed autonomy, their own institutions, schools, administration, language for at least half a century before the Great War - Poland didn't.
Similarly Yugoslavia - its member states existed for a long time and even fought a few major wars earlier.
Georgia was quickly reconquered.

The Baltic States survived mostly thanks to external circumstances, and German protection and support, their frequently heroic resistance was insufficient alone.

Everything would be "less" or "worse". Fewer taxes collected, a smaller and even more rag-tag Army than in reality. Less successful conscription.
Later elections so less time to achive politcal consesus.
The negatives could have been negated by a signing a truce or even a peace treaty with the Soviets early on - because they were willing.
The Baltic states would pay for that with their freedom - because the Soviets would have the means and time to "take care" of them.

Why were the Soviets initially willing to sign a peace treaty with the Poles only to later try conquering all of Poland?

They were willing because they were weak and needed time to consolidated their power, the negotiations failed, and the war resumed. Later it was a case of an unplanned, opportunistic conquest of Poland.
According to one of the latest Piłsudski's biographers, the reasons were he wanted to destroy the Red Army and to create a bourgeois Ukrainian state.

They were willing because they were weak and needed time to consolidated their power, the negotiations failed, and the war resumed. Later it was a case of an unplanned, opportunistic conquest of Poland.
According to one of the latest Piłsudski's biographers, the reasons were he wanted to destroy the Red Army and to create a bourgeois Ukrainian state.

What were the borders that the Soviets initially offered to the Poles? The Curzon Line?

I suppose it's not known. Lenin gave his negotiators almost a free hand but the negotiations were terminated quickly.
Piłsudski's enemies claimed and claim even today it was more or less the same borders he would win later.